E-mail List Archives

You are here: Home > Community > E-mail List Archives > View Thread

Thread: PDF vs. HTML

Number of posts in this thread: 26 (In chronological order)

From: christopher.phillips
Date: Fri, May 21 2004 11:19AM
Subject: PDF vs. HTML
No previous message | Next message →

I've been going back and forth this past week with a Director of
Teaching and Learning Technologies at a small community college about
the benefits of HTML vs. those of PDF. Pertaining to accessibility we
both agree that a document needs to be properly marked up regardless of
what format it is going to be displayed in, we disagree however on what
format is best to publish accessible content- HTML or PDF. While I
believe that there are definitely situations where PDF format may be
appropriate, my opinion is that semantic HTML is a better choice for
displaying converted Word, PowerPoint and General content online.
During our discussion, this colleague has summarily dismissed many of
the accessibility concerns with PDF that are raised in the WebAIM
article:
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/acrobat/
I'm asking for your help for a couple of reasons-
1- I feel unqualified to answer some of his concerns and
2- I'm feeling perhaps a little too personally invested in the dialog
we've been having to trust myself to be objective at this point-

I've posted some of his concerns at:
http://www.communityinclusion.org/curbcut/archives/odds_n_ends/ 000027.html

I know that many of you know much more about PDF than I do and if
anyone has any words of wisdom or advice it would be greatly
appreciated-
Feel free to address any comments back to this list, to me individually
or in the comments section of the blog post above- whatever you feel
most comfortable with.

Thanks much,
Christopher Phillips
Institute for Community Inclusion
UMass Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd.
Boston, MA 02125
435.753.3227
Curb Cut Learning
http://www.communityinclusion.org/curbcut/

From: julian.rickards
Date: Fri, May 21 2004 11:32AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

HTML is much more accessible than PDFs at this stage although accessible
PDFs are better than non-accessible (inaccessible?) PDFs. Accessible HTML is
faster to download and does not depend on software versions (at least, not
quite as much). You may have a mix of both and as long as the accessible
HTML version is promoted first, then the PDF does not need to be accessible
but you should consider warning your visitors of that. PDFs are good for
those who need a printable version (don't discount print stylesheets
though).

My 2 cents,

Jules

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690

From: jongund
Date: Fri, May 21 2004 11:41AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

Christohper,

One option to consider is both. I think one of the
underutilized features of the web is to make the same
information available in more than one format. Then you can
let the USER choose what format works best for them in any
given circumstance. This can be regarless of disability. For
example, if I want to print something, I may want thet PDF,
but if I just want to skim before I print I may want a HTML
version.

I think one of the advantages of the web over print is that
you can have information in more than one form and allow users
to choose what they want.

We have been developing a tool at the University of Illinois
to create highly accessible HTML versions of Power Point
Presentations. This maybe helpful to you in converting PPT to
HTML.

http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/software/office

Jon

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:19:54 -0600
>From: "christopher.phillips" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: [WebAIM] PDF vs. HTML
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
>I've been going back and forth this past week with a Director
of
>Teaching and Learning Technologies at a small community
college about
>the benefits of HTML vs. those of PDF. Pertaining to
accessibility we
>both agree that a document needs to be properly marked up
regardless of
>what format it is going to be displayed in, we disagree
however on what
>format is best to publish accessible content- HTML or PDF.
While I
>believe that there are definitely situations where PDF format
may be
>appropriate, my opinion is that semantic HTML is a better
choice for
>displaying converted Word, PowerPoint and General content online.
>During our discussion, this colleague has summarily dismissed
many of
>the accessibility concerns with PDF that are raised in the
WebAIM
>article:
>http://www.webaim.org/techniques/acrobat/
>I'm asking for your help for a couple of reasons-
>1- I feel unqualified to answer some of his concerns and
>2- I'm feeling perhaps a little too personally invested in
the dialog
>we've been having to trust myself to be objective at this point-
>
>I've posted some of his concerns at:
>http://www.communityinclusion.org/curbcut/archives/odds_n_ends/
>000027.html
>
>I know that many of you know much more about PDF than I do
and if
>anyone has any words of wisdom or advice it would be greatly
>appreciated-
>Feel free to address any comments back to this list, to me
individually
>or in the comments section of the blog post above- whatever
you feel
>most comfortable with.
>
>Thanks much,
>Christopher Phillips
>Institute for Community Inclusion
>UMass Boston
>100 Morrissey Blvd.
>Boston, MA 02125
>435.753.3227
>Curb Cut Learning
>http://www.communityinclusion.org/curbcut/
>
>----
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit
http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund

From: foliot
Date: Fri, May 21 2004 2:24PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

Hmm...

Reading your colleague's comments leaves me with the distinct impression
that he is a pro-PDF participant.

I would offer him the following: Since the requirements for creating an
accessible PDF document closely mirror the requirements for accessible HTML
"conversion", the effort required is approximately equal. However, one is a
proprietary format, the other is an "open" and public format. One requires
a "free" downloadable "plugin or stand alone app", the other displays
natively in all HTML browsers including text only browsers and older
versions of browsers - no need to upgrade to the latest version (not that I
advocate *NOT* upgrading whenever appropriate and possible). However, this
point alone makes HTML inherently more accessible. If the goal of your web
site/organization is to achieve a measurable level of accessibility (ie:
WCAG Priority A, AA or AAA status), then I would point him to the following:
WCAG Priority 2 - 11.1: Use W3C technologies when they are available and
appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported. Last
time I checked, PDF is not a W3C technology, HTML is (<grin>)

The bigger question is, why is he arguing this point? Most people in the
web accessibility field acknowledge that Adobe have made decent strides in
improving their tool, but PDF files were, are, and will continue to be cross
platform PRINT files, whereas HTML is, was and will always be cross platform
monitor display mark up language. I can use the back of a screw driver or
the sole of my shoe to pound a nail into the wall, and it will get the job
done. But I would rather use a hammer.

Your colleague has done a decent job rebutting (or rather, arguing against)
the points made, however he has not (to my mind) provided evidence on the
superiority or benefit of using PDF in lieu of HTML. So to him (via you) I
ask: why? Why use PDF instead of HTML?

As we move to a more "web-centric" world, not all participants will be using
Internet Explorer with the Adobe Plugin. I know this may come as a shock to
some, but trust me, it's true. I am not yet aware of an Adobe Acrobat
plugin which works for PDAs, Cell Phones, Web ready refrigerators and car
dashboards, etc. These tools (toys?) are with us now, and will only
continue to proliferate and grow. For this reason, I personally would seek
to ensure that my content is available and accessible to everybody, not just
the people sitting at a desk with a tower or laptop. As others have pointed
out, go ahead and provide the PDF along side the HTML if a print version is
truly required, but if you are going to invest effort converting a document
from Word or Excel into a format that can be shared via the web, why not go
with the original web format - HTML?

Just my (opinionated) $.02 worth

JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)

>

From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, May 21 2004 4:01PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

And to add to the comments already submitted, making the conversion
from HTML to PDF is MUCH easier than going from PDF to HTML. We need
to rethink the processes for developing media that will be on both
print and the Web.

Starting with properly formatted HTML allows for:
1) An extremely easy conversion to PDF. Just open the HTML in Word (or
whatever), then save as PDF.
2) Document structure for the PDF is correct, assuming you've
structured the HTML correctly. This allows the PDF to be natively
accessible in most cases and relatively easy to make accessible in
others.
3) It is easy to provide both the accessible HTML and the (optionally
accessible) PDF.

Still, there is the argument of having print-ready media look the
same, blah, blah, though I think it is a relatively weak argument in
nearly all cases and one that can most often be overcome by good HTML
design.

Jared Smith
WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind)
Center for Persons with Disabilities
Utah State University

From: Cheryl D. Wise
Date: Sat, May 22 2004 7:03PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

You don't even need to open a web page in Word. Full version of Adobe will
create a PDF from any HTML page open in a browser.

Cheryl D. Wise
Certified Professional Web Developer
MS-MVP-FrontPage
www.wiserways.com
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
713.353.0139 Office

From: Cheryl D. Wise
Date: Sat, May 22 2004 7:08PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

There are PDF readers for Palm Pilots and Pocket PCs. Don't know about cell
phones but I wouldn't want to read a PDF or even most HTML pages on a cell
phone anyway.

Is there a PDF viewer for WebTV? I've been seeing lots of those devices in
hotel rooms the last year or two.

Cheryl D. Wise
Certified Professional Web Developer
MS-MVP-FrontPage
www.wiserways.com
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
713.353.0139 Office

From: John Brandt
Date: Sun, May 23 2004 10:22AM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

There have been plenty of folks who have already responded to this
discussion citing all of the things I would have regarding the value of HTML
over PDF... However, may I ask another question?

Thanks.

Is there a way of telling if a PDF has been made accessible by mere review?
In other words...how can you tell, by simply looking at the file in the
standard Acrobat reader if someone has made the effort of making that PDF
accessible?

jeb

John E. Brandt
Augusta, Maine USA

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.jebswebs.com

From: julian.rickards
Date: Tue, May 25 2004 6:59AM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

From: jeb
Date: Fri, Jul 30 2004 1:42PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

Some time has gone by since this question was asked (and responded to), but
I have another question dealing with the same issue.

Today I discovered - quite by accident - that Adobe Acrobat Reader (v6.0.2)
with its various plug-ins - has a built-in text reader (see: View> Read Out
Loud). I've tested some PDFs that I had located on my hard drive and found
that it "read" all of them with mixed results. The "Read Out Loud" feature
was able to read everything on the page, but not always in the order it was
intended. It also was not able to read graphic images that contain text
(similar to HTML when someone does not add the ALT attribute). Lastly, it
seemed to have a hard time understanding that the period at the end of the
sentence means that you're supposed to "stop" - lots of run-on sentences.

So, my new question is, will the "Read Out Loud" work with ALL PDFs or only
ones that have been previously been "made accessible."

BTW, There is also a plug-in for the Acrobat Reader that is called "Make
Accessible" - but I have not figured out how this works. Anyone know?

My reason for asking these questions is that I historically have strongly
advised clients against the use of PDFs because of the accessibility issue.
Yet, there appears to be an increasing number of PDFs showing up. If the
newest Reader is able to in fact "read" these files, then I guess I have to
stop discouraging their use.

Any comments welcome.

John E. Brandt
Augusta, Maine USA

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.jebswebs.com

From: Paul Bohman
Date: Fri, Jul 30 2004 3:56PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

Regarding the accessibility of PDF files, the results are mixed. I was heading out the door when I got your email, so my response is going to be a bit brief, but I thought I'd give you a few resources to look at:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/solutionsacc.html

The above link contains numerous Adobe resources about PDF accessibility. Some specific links off of that section that are worth looking at in detail are the following:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/access_info.html

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/access_booklet.html

Many Acrobat files can be made accessible to screen readers. It's not always easy. The more complex the document, the smaller the chance that it can be made accessible.

The built-in "screen reader" in Acrobat is a great idea, but it's not as good as full-featured screen readers.

And that's all I have time to say at the moment, so I hope others contribute to this thread!

--
Paul Bohman
Director of Products and Services
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Utah State University
www.usu.edu

From: julian.rickards
Date: Thu, Aug 05 2004 2:36AM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

Part of my job function is to create accessible PDFs which according to the
Acrobat Accessibility Checker, mine are fine. I also incorporate checking
that does cannot be automatically checked such as "don't depend on colour".
Nevertheless, the accessibility of an accessible PDF is no where near the
same degree of accessibility of an accessible web page. Tables do not have
header cells (using a PDF generated from Word) and even if you do mark up
the top row of a table as a series of header cells (using PDF tags after the
PDF has been generated), neither Read Out Loud, nor JAWS are able to
associate the cells in the table with the header cells which is a feature
that JAWS can provide if HTML tables are marked up properly. In JAWS using
an HTML page, you can skip from heading to heading but neither JAWS nor Read
Out Loud understand headings in a PDF. In JAWS using an HTML page, you are
told the number of items in a list but this is not available to readers of
PDFs.

Despite the efforts that Adobe has been applying to making PDFs accessible,
I don't "see" the results. My experience with JAWS is limited - I am a
sighted person and used JAWS 5.0 (trial) for a while to try to experience
what JAWS users experience.

Because of my experience with "accessible" PDFs and accessible HTML, one of
my job functions will be changing over the next couple of months to reduce
the use of PDFs and to publicize our new publications in HTML format (with a
PDF as an alternate, not guaranteed to be accessible, printable format).

Jules

-----------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
A/Digitial Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publication Services Section,
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,
Vox: 705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960

From: mzwack
Date: Fri, Jul 30 2004 4:28PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

*I'm implementing a lot of accessible PDFs

*With version 6 there has been increased ease for applying tags

*The only PDFs we are avoiding making accessible are PDFs with lots of
tables, because HTML will read tables better (when the LIFT program in
Macromedia Dreamweaver is used on the tables)

*PDFs developed in Office 2000/XP (word, excel, powerpoint) are particularly
easy to convert to accessible PDF format using the PDFMaker macro (you can
even add the ALT tags right in Word, Excel, Powerpoint that convert right
over to accessible PDF format)

*For programs, coming from other programs, that is where you would use the
make accessible action in Acrobat, then fix and adjust the tags as necessary

*You can change the reading order of the document (from the Acrobat 6 Pro
toolbar) select Edit > Preferences > Reading then adjust the reading order -
this can be helpful in cases like you mention, however I have not tested
this out a lot because the Acrobat Read Out Loud method is not the only type
of screen reader, there is also Jaws, etc.

Let me know if you'd like and I can expand on this as necessary

Melanie

From: t.vance
Date: Fri, Jul 30 2004 2:30PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

>My reason for asking these questions is that I historically have strongly
>advised clients against the use of PDFs because of the accessibility issue.
>Yet, there appears to be an increasing number of PDFs showing up. If the
>newest Reader is able to in fact "read" these files, then I guess I have to
>stop discouraging their use.

The university that I work for has a lot of legacy pdfs. Most of them are made in Quark or Word, which means that some of them have a snowball's chance of being accessible. The Word-originated pdfs have a higher chance, but they still require a lot of time to be made accessible.

Why am I telling you this? Because PDFs can be accessible (to a point) if you are willing to invest long hours and trial and error to make them both accessible AND usable. PDFs can be accessible, pass the 508 standards and most of the WCAG and they are still incomprehensible with a screen reader. Text flow is not Acrobat's strong point.

We have a lot of people that would like PDF forms. Not because of the neat calculating tools that Adobe has worked in or anything else, but merely because they look prettier than HTML forms. We try to steer them towards HTML even with the possibilities of accessibility with PDF forms. This is because we can assure both accessibility and usability in HTML with a quick creation.

On a good day it takes twice as long to make content that is completely accessible with Acrobat. That would be a verry good day. Most of the time it's a struggle. If the content was laid out in Quark you may as well forget about it.

The pros for PDF accessibility are that it can happen (hypothetically speaking), it means a few extra steps to repurpose content (hypothetically speaking) and it's prettier.

The cons are that the user needs extra software (plugins), the manner of accessibility is still pretty rusty for screen readers (as you pointed out with the run-on sentence example), and the whole process still takes way too much time.

HTML requires a browser. Knowledge of HTML or an editing program (preferably both, thank you very much). Some spare moments to copy, paste and get everything together.

The best thing about using HTML is that, if you're coding correctly, you don't have to worry about accessibility because HTML is *meant* to be accessible.

I would still stress HTML with clients over PDFs because of the amount of billable hours they will be responsible for paying and the time you'll be wasting slaving over the readable flow of the PDF document.

-Tina Bell Vance

From: mzwack
Date: Fri, Jul 30 2004 2:38PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

I also agree with what you are saying about Legacy Pdfs, they can be
difficult if not impossible to deal with, especially if these documents have
been scanned from a paper source

From: sachin
Date: Fri, Jul 30 2004 3:27PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

If the documents have been scanned from a paper source and saved as a PDF,
I've always noticed that JAWS doesn't work at all with it.

Sachin

From: mmoore
Date: Fri, Jul 30 2004 3:38PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

Actually even scanned documents can be made to be accessible with the latest
version of Adobe. OCR functionality is built in. Contact Greg Pisocky at
Adobe for more details.

Mike Moore

From: inekemaa
Date: Fri, Jul 30 2004 4:31PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello Mike,

You wrote:
>Actually even scanned documents can be made to be accessible with the
latest
>version of Adobe. OCR functionality is built in. Contact Greg Pisocky
at
>Adobe for more details.

PDF can be made accessible, but how many people downloaded the Acrobat
reader for reading pdf-files?
In Germany it is only 10%. (http://www.webhits.de, link: web barometer)
.

greetings
Ineke van der Maat

From: mmoore
Date: Fri, Jul 30 2004 8:02PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

Gutten tag Ineke,

I agree with you - this is the reason that we recommend that people using
pdf's or any other plug-in do two things. First check to see if the plug-in
is accessible and second provide a link to acquire the plug-in.

In general I much prefer to present content in html over any other format.
It has more predictable results and requires less expertise to get to the
content on the part of the user, particularly when using assistive
technologies. That said, as developers we still must satisfy our client's
wishes to use other forms of content. The main reasons that I have heard
for desiring pdfs seems to be that it is much more difficult to alter this
type of content so it makes sense from a legal standpoint. Also pdfs can
produce better results when printed but you can achieve very good results
using stylesheets. The final reason is the ability to use scanned
documents, saving considerable development costs over recreating the
content. Unfortunately this is also where the most frequent accessibility
issues occur.

What we really need is a quantum shift in attitude about publishing on the
WWW. If the information that we place on the web is worth publishing then
it should be easily available to everyone. If it is not worth taking the
effort to make it accessible we should ask ourselves if it is really worth
publishing at all.

Well enough of a soap box for tonight. (Must be the election season)

Mike

From: inekemaa
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2004 12:06AM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

JHello Mike,

>That said, as developers we still must satisfy our client's
> wishes to use other forms of content

i don't know who are you clients, but my clients only say:
You are the expert, so you know how to build (accessible ) websites.
I also don't tell the butcher how to treat the meat..

i don't want to exclude anybody from information, so I will never offer
pdf-files as the only file-format.
And especcially not when statistics tell that only 10% has the plug-in.
I don't see any reason to use it.

And what legal reason?
----- Original Message -----
From: "mmoore" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF vs. HTML

>
> Gutten tag Ineke,
>
> I agree with you - this is the reason that we recommend that people
using
> pdf's or any other plug-in do two things. First check to see if the
plug-in
> is accessible and second provide a link to acquire the plug-in.
>
> In general I much prefer to present content in html over any other
format.
> It has more predictable results and requires less expertise to get to
the
> content on the part of the user, particularly when using assistive
> technologies. That said, as developers we still must satisfy our
client's
> wishes to use other forms of content. The main reasons that I have
heard
> for desiring pdfs seems to be that it is much more difficult to alter
this
> type of content so it makes sense from a legal standpoint. Also pdfs
can
> produce better results when printed but you can achieve very good
results
> using stylesheets. The final reason is the ability to use scanned
> documents, saving considerable development costs over recreating the
> content. Unfortunately this is also where the most frequent
accessibility
> issues occur.
>
> What we really need is a quantum shift in attitude about publishing on
the
> WWW. If the information that we place on the web is worth publishing
then
> it should be easily available to everyone. If it is not worth taking
the
> effort to make it accessible we should ask ourselves if it is really
worth
> publishing at all.
>
> Well enough of a soap box for tonight. (Must be the election season)
>
> Mike
>
>
>

From: earl.machen
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2004 5:45AM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

All the people I consulted advised to use PDF's only for information
that people might want to keep a copy of.

From: drs18
Date: Sat, Jul 31 2004 2:38PM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

I know software companies like Adobe and Macromedia are working hard to make their proprietary packets of information accessible; I can't, without more critical experience, address their up-to-the-minute, company-line success rate.

If you feel that you must create PDF files for Web distribution, and must create HTML versions as well, you may want to consider learning a bit about print stylesheets for HTML. Support is great, and you can create very good print versions of your same data set, thereby eliminating the need for PDF.

You by-pass the "forms and tables in PDF" question.

If you have legacy PDF files that are going online without HTML versions, the work involved to create HTML versions, and then print styled versions, is fairly small for your return.

The long term benefit to the work involved in updating and maintaining content makes it well worth looking into. I like Meyer's article on A List Apart as a good place to start- http://www.alistapart.com/articles/goingtoprint/

--
David R. Stong
Microcomputer Information Specialist (Graphic Designer),
Education Technology Services, a unit of
Teaching and Learning with Technology
Information Technology Services
The Pennsylvania State University
Phone 8148651843

212 Rider Building II
227 W Beaver Avenue
State College, PA 16801-4819

Working for Universal Design: http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/accessibility

Download Penn State's visual identity marks:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/drs18/mark.html

From: julian.rickards
Date: Tue, Aug 03 2004 7:14AM
Subject: Re: Accessibility, Flash and wmode
← Previous message | Next message →

That's correct, an image of a document is not live text and therefore,
absolutely inaccessible. However, if you are suggesting that the document
also has been OCR'd, that will improve the situation but OCRing has its own
errors and may create problems with "typos" or content out of order.

-----------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
A/Digitial Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publication Services Section,
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,
Vox: 705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960

From: julian.rickards
Date: Thu, Aug 05 2004 2:33AM
Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Shawn Lawton Henry
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2004 2:18PM
Subject: RE
← Previous message | No next message

> We also are implementing a text version.

I have posted before to this list the dangers of text versions for
accessibility. Those who have seen this before, please excuse the
repeat. I feel compelled to send it again as the issue keeps coming up.

Summary:
- text-only versions are rarely totally equivalent in content to the
graphic ("real") version
- text-only is accessible to some, and not to others; for example people
with cognitive disabilities often benefit from graphical elements such
as effective icons and navigation areas set apart on a coloured
background
- when there is a text-only version available, developers usually do not
make the graphic ("real") version accessible

From "Understanding Web Accessibility" in "Constructing Accessible
Websites" [1]:

Myth: Just Add a Text-Only Version

A common approach to providing accessible web pages is to design a site,
and then make a separate accessible site, that is, text-only version.
The issue of text-only versions crosses into the idea of separate versus
inclusive design. In today's environment, providing separately developed
sites is rarely the best approach for accessibility, or for business.
(However, providing truly equivalent information that can be accessed
graphically or textually from the same content source is advantageous.)

In the past, common assistive technologies were not able to handle
complex web page designs. For example, screen readers read across the
screen, so multi-column newspaper-style layouts were not usable. It was
nearly impossible at one time to provide visually appealing, complex,
dynamic web sites that were also accessible. Therefore, designers were
faced with the choice of either significant constraints on their design
or providing a text-only version. Now, technologies let you develop
visually appealing, complex, dynamic web sites that are also accessible.
Style sheets offer more presentation functionality, assistive
technologies can handle layout tables, and browsers provide text
resizing. Many recent technologies from the W3C such as Scaleable Vector
Graphics (SVG) actually provide more flexibility for presentation as
well as accessibility support.

There are several problems with providing a separate accessible site:

- Separate versions are rarely equal. When there are two versions of the
site, invariably, the text-only version does not get updated as
frequently as the main version. Even when organizations and individuals
have the best intentions of keeping two sites synchronized, the
realities of deadlines and limited resources interfere. As discussed
overleaf, emerging technologies and methodologies are minimizing this
problem.

- The primary version often lacks even the most basic accessibility.
Commonly, developers of alternative accessible text-only sites spend
little effort making the primary site accessible. The alternative site
is often optimized for screen readers, with all information provided
linearly and without graphics and color. However, some people would be
better off using an accessible primary site.

Some new tools generate both a primary site and a text-only site from a
single source of content, supposedly eliminating the first problem
mentioned, that of separate sites not being synchronized. In one such
implementation that I reviewed, the text-only site was fairly close in
content to the primary site. However, the alternative site was missing
promotional material. Therefore, users of the text-only version missed
out on special offers offered through the web site. Clearly this was
discriminatory.

Certainly technologies and development efforts are beginning to provide
the tools and methodologies needed to ensure that truly equivalent
multiple versions of a site can be provided. For example, using XSLT to
transform XML documents into other markup more suited for specific
configurations or ASP to dynamically generate pages from database or XML
files. ... This is a promising development.

---

[1] From "Understanding Web Accessibility" chapter by Shawn Lawton Henry
in "Constructing Accessible Websites" book by Jim Thatcher, Cynthia
Waddell, Shawn Lawton Henry, Sarah Swierenga, Mark Urban, Michael Burks,
Paul Bohman, Publisher: APress; Reprint edition (July 14, 2003), ISBN:
1590591488